Trent Palmer (YouTuber Bush Pilot Channel) Suspended By FAA

Anthem said:
I’m not sure why so many pilots want to defend him for what he did. In “concept” - it’s a good defense - that you have the ability to overfly a potential landing spot before actually landing and still have the choice not to land and not get persecuted.

In reality - he is just a YouTube douche bag looking for clicks. The entire appeal is rooted in clicks and click bait. And let’s be real - If you were a real pilot, you should have done your research beforehand of your landing area before landing. And just from that - know that that wasn’t a suitable area to land. On top of that - I overfly grass fields all the time. And I’m not at 100-200ft over then to see whether the squirrel will be a factor for landing. Look at the google maps of the area - there are houses literally within 500ft in a neighborhood of his proposed landing area. Which isn’t even really defined.

The reality is that this guy isn’t good for GA. He might be entertaining but he’s atrocious for making our hobby/industry better.

It’s also ironic to me that those same people who will lambast say Jerry Wagner are those who would defend Trent Palmer…. Jerry doesn’t try to do anything dangerous (and tries to educate and say the right thing - even if he doesn’t sometimes “do” the right thing ) - he just sometimes does inadvertently. Can you imagine if he tried a low low pass in his 421 ?

But seriously - he was guilty even without the ring camera video of video evidence. That was disallowed because of the ineptitude of the government.
Click to expand...
lol incompetence is ok. Ok
 
Funny how the people who insist on injecting politics into everything always seem to have the weakest grasp of facts. Applies to both sides.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
I’m not sure why so many pilots want to defend him for what he did. In “concept” - it’s a good defense - that you have the ability to overfly a potential landing spot before actually landing and still have the choice not to land and not get persecuted.

In reality - he is just a YouTube douche bag looking for clicks. The entire appeal is rooted in clicks and click bait.
Click to expand...
Why are the two mutually exclusive? If you believe in the rule of law, then you have to allow even a "YouTube douchebag" the benefit of it.
Anthem said:
And let’s be real - If you were a real pilot, you should have done your research beforehand of your landing area before landing. And just from that - know that that wasn’t a suitable area to land.
Click to expand...
The court that rubber stamped the FAA/NTSB made that rationalizing too -- he could/should have landed at the nearest airport and walked to the property to inspect it. :rolleyes:
Anthem said:
On top of that - I overfly grass fields all the time. And I’m not at 100-200ft over then to see whether the squirrel will be a factor for landing.
Click to expand...
Oh, and hope no wildlife occupies the field while he walked back to his aircraft and began the flight in. Because had there been an animal there which made landing unsafe, and the airman aborted THAT landing, he'd have been found just as guilty as he was for not making the asinine walking tour in the first instance.
Anthem said:
Look at the google maps of the area - there are houses literally within 500ft in a neighborhood of his proposed landing area. Which isn’t even really defined.
Click to expand...
That fact that it isn't defined makes it more preferable to be lenient about its enforcement, rather than more strict -- if one wants this to be a free country that is. If not, YMMV.
Anthem said:
The reality is that this guy isn’t good for GA. He might be entertaining but he’s atrocious for making our hobby/industry better.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion, and encouraged to express it, at least by me who does prefer to live in a free country.
Anthem said:
But seriously - he was guilty even without the ring camera video of video evidence.
Click to expand...
That you believe so speaks volumes.
Anthem said:
That was disallowed because of the ineptitude of the government.
Click to expand...
The government -- in the form of FAA/NTSB -- don't have to be competent if the courts are always there to bail them out; and they never will be.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Precedence. The best evidence law. Those are the ones I immediately recall a day after watching the video.
Click to expand...
The first inaccurate information in his videos is there is a best evidence law. The best evidence rule allows for copies in the event the original document is unavailable, lost, or destroyed.

Palmer’s attorney’s motion was likely properly overruled by the judge.
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
Why are the two mutually exclusive? If you believe in the rule of law, then you have to allow even a "YouTube douchebag" the benefit of it.
Click to expand...
What "rule of law" was violated in this case?
DJTorrente said:
The court that rubber stamped the FAA/NTSB made that rationalizing too -- he could/should have landed at the nearest airport and walked to the property to inspect it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Which court rubber stamped the FAA/NTSB? The ALJ reduced the penalty the FAA asked for. The NTSB's opinion and analysis was thorough, as was the DC Circuit's.
DJTorrente said:
Oh, and hope no wildlife occupies the field while he walked back to his aircraft and began the flight in. Because had there been an animal there which made landing unsafe, and the airman aborted THAT landing, he'd have been found just as guilty as he was for not making the asinine walking tour in the first instance.
Click to expand...
What's your basis for this claim? If the "landing strip" had been determined in advance to be suitable, most of the reasoning for the violations would be gone.
DJTorrente said:
The government -- in the form of FAA/NTSB -- don't have to be competent if the courts are always there to bail them out; and they never will be.
Click to expand...
Calling the FAA incompetent here is pretty ironic considering that the YouTuber's appeal was based, in part, on the argument that the ALJ shouldn't have allowed the YouTuber to answer a question that he was asked by his own lawyer. :skeptical:
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
I’m not sure why so many pilots want to defend him for what he did.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to that is easy. From the very beginning, a case involving flying through someone’s back yard was painted as an attack on GA by the FAA. Even the alphabet organizations jumped on the bandwagon. Our ability to practice instrument approaches and even touch & goes is suddenly in grave danger. We are no longer able to fly into a fly-in community because the houses are too close to the runway that’s maintained by the same homeowners’ dues. I’ve heard all of those and more.

Which is more fun? Which is more likely in our country today? Saying, “oh well. The guy made a bad decision.” Or, maybe, “the FAA was overzealous on this one.” Or how about “the evil minions of the FAA are out to get us all!”
 
I don't know, I kinda like this one better:


Don't know about the details on the Palmer thing. But I do know that we need to defend the rights of the slow and stupid, the annoying and arrogant, the ones we don't like, even those working against us, or those freedoms will go away. I'm not the one that figured that out, and I kinda hate it sometimes, but believe it to be true. I don't have any idea if this applies to this case. I can't speak to anyone's character involved and there are at least 4-5 different parties with different interests that I can count. But I'm certain that it's possible to not be a fan of the guy, and generally be a supporter of the FAA, and not agree with the decision. Or vice versa.
 
robin ardoin said:
If you look at the property in question, it would not take a 100' pass to know it was unsuitable. I don't think the FAA was unreasonable in their decision.
Click to expand...
I did look at it a long time ago. I didn't see anything I'd land a Cessna at, but since I don't know the short field capabilities of his airplane, I can't look at a property and know it's unsuitable.

I can also say that I've looked at airports on Google maps where I said "Sure, I can land there", then got there and said "no way".

The reason inspection passes are in the regulations is to permit a pilot to inspect a potential landing site without committing to it. Applying a post flight judgement because "you shouldn't have even looked at it" removes authority from the pilot and results in less safe aviation.
 
bflynn said:
did look at it a long time ago. I didn't see anything I'd land a Cessna at, but since I don't know the short field capabilities of his airplane, I can't look at a property and know it's unsuitable.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how you are defining “unsuitable.” If you are defining it solely in terms of whether an airplane is capable of landing there, sure. It might have been suitable. So’s a schoolyard, mall parking lot, or city street. Is it ok to make a low pass to look at those?

The cases I’ve read on the appropriateness of the choice of landing are looking at the overall environment, not solely the capability of the aircraft. In one (the one which may have kept Palmer from going there), the 9th Circuit upheld an enforcement action against a pilot who landed on a taxiway within 500’ of people instead of the available runway.
 
^^^^^ Exactly ^^^^^ I could land a 172 in a mall parking lot near my home. Just because I and the airplane are capable, it doesn’t mean it is suitable or reasonable. The plaintiff had excellent counsel yet the courts were not convinced that his actions were in the spirit of the regulations.
 
Jim K said:
Surprise... turns out it's Youtubers

I posted these back in post 812: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-channel-suspended-by-faa.137808/post-3500495

View attachment 139499View attachment 139500

Comparing this lot to a mall parking lot is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Based on that backyard dirt bike track…my guess is the neighbors are already ****ed with the landowner making noise. If he also was flying rc planes, the neighbors probably were primed to complain. The low pass was maybe the last straw.
 
texasclouds said:
Based on that backyard dirt bike track…my guess is the neighbors are already ****ed with the landowner making noise. If he also was flying rc planes, the neighbors probably were primed to complain. The low pass was maybe the last straw.
Click to expand...
That's my read, and maybe Trent and his buddy decided to buzz them. OR maybe they just thought it would be fun and there was plenty of room, but he changed his mind last minute like he said. I don't know, nor does anyone else here, in spite of their protestations.
 
Jim K said:
Comparing this lot to a mall parking lot is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Explain the difference. Other than "how many" buildings or structures or people you pass within 500' of, I'm having trouble seeing it. Or is that people who live in rural communities have less rights?
 
UngaWunga said:
And y'all are assuming that he was indeed making an inspection pass, and not buzzing his friend's home.
Click to expand...
That may well be what was happening, but that's difficult to prove and the evidence wasn't there. My analysis, FWIW, doesn't take that into account.

But that is one of the problems which supports the FAA-as-anti-pilot-conspiracy theory. The FAA has a unfortunate history of reinterpreting regulations to cover situations when they can't prove conduct. Or using 91.13 to cover otherwise legal conduct.
 
Anthem said:
what are they interpreting incorrectly ? The FAA reg 91.119(c) is pretty clear. Quoted here for your reference :

"Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except overopen water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operatedcloser than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

And lets be clear - this was NOT an airport. If it was - private or public - this wouldnt apply.
Click to expand...
You do know that explanation and understanding does not equal agreement, right? The fact is that the FAA does reinterpret to fit. They didn't in this case, but that tendency supports those who think it's just the FAA trying to destroy GA.
 
Anthem said:
And let’s be clear - this was NOT an airport. If it was - private or public - this wouldnt apply.
Click to expand...
What makes this different from an airport? If I make an inspection pass at an charted airport that I don’t intend to land at and happen to fly within 500 feet of a house, should the same outcome apply? What if I make an inspection pass even though I know the runway is perfect? Neither is necessary for landing, regardless of whether it’s a charted airport or another legal landing place, which in at least some states is anywhere you aren’t trespassing.

I haven’t read the opinion and I didn’t watch his latest remake of Rashomon interpreting it. But I would guess the difference comes down to “necessary for landing” and the courts didn’t believe that he intended to land, making the pass unnecessary. (On appeal, courts don’t typically second guess the weight and credibility of testimony that the lower court or jury actually saw.)
 
midlifeflyer said:
Explain the difference. Other than "how many" buildings or structures or people you pass within 500' of, I'm having trouble seeing it. Or is that people who live in rural communities have less rights?
Click to expand...
If you can't see a difference between a mall parking lot in built up area and the pictures above, nothing i say will change your mind. That why I re-posted them.

Anthem said:
not a "legal landing place"
Click to expand...
Why not? There's enough space, he had permission, and there's plenty of space to land in the event of an engine failure. I've been into a lot of airports with a lot less options than the above if the engine quits.

It's a ten acre lot, 900 feet wide iirc. How many acres does it need to be to land on it? My Lance could land in that "back yard", although i couldn't get it out again without using the empty lot next door too. His kitfox needs about 25 feet. Probably less than some of the RC airplanes they fly there.

Again, I'm not saying he's innocent of buzz job, I just don't see the evidence to convince me he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
Surprise... turns out it's Youtubers

I posted these back in post 812: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-channel-suspended-by-faa.137808/post-3500495

View attachment 139499View attachment 139500

Comparing this lot to a mall parking lot is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...
You are right. There are not any houses in a mall parking lot. Lol

Thanks for posting the pictures.

Doesn’t look like a good spot for this old ag pilot. If I was in the helicopter different story. Not so much the airplane.
 
bflynn said:
The reason inspection passes are in the regulations is to permit a pilot to inspect a potential landing site without committing to it. Applying a post flight judgement because "you shouldn't have even looked at it" removes authority from the pilot and results in less safe aviation.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean about inspection passes *are in the regulations," but Trent did cite an FAA publication about off field landings that he claims contradicts the faa's case. The court of appeals took care of that quickly:

In fact, the evidence on which Palmer relies undermines his position. The FAA Off Airport Operations Guide (which in any event is not binding and does not control the Board's analysis) advises pilots to make at least three passes to assess a landing site at varying altitudes: first a high level pass to observe possible obstructions, then an intermediate pass to evaluate the site in greater detail and, finally, a low pass to check for dips and bumps on the ground. It is undisputed that Palmer made only one pass at a low level and thus did not follow the guidance.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

Palmer put this document in the record as part of his defense. But his behavior didn't even conform to the guidance.
 
Jim K said:
If you can't see a difference between a mall parking lot in built up area and the pictures above, nothing i say will change your mind. That why I re-posted them.
Click to expand...
I'm just asking for an articulatable difference that sets a standard which can be at least quasi-objectively applied to other situations. If you can't, that's ok.
 
Jim K said:
Surprise... turns out it's Youtubers

I posted these back in post 812: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-channel-suspended-by-faa.137808/post-3500495

View attachment 139499View attachment 139500

Comparing this lot to a mall parking lot is pretty disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Reading your post about the lot, sure it's 600x800. But it's pretty clear theyve made a motocross track on it. I agree with the principle of fighting FAA action. He FAFO with an already cantankerous neighbor.

I'm being hypocritical as everytime I pass the neighbors alfalfa field I see 2 potential runways for a kitfox. 18-36 and 09-27. Forget the houses to the south and east. And the 50' obstacle to the north.

IMG_0688.jpeg
 
Jim K said:
That's my read, and maybe Trent and his buddy decided to buzz them. OR maybe they just thought it would be fun and there was plenty of room, but he changed his mind last minute like he said. I don't know, nor does anyone else here, in spite of their protestations.
Click to expand...
All right. Let's assume for a moment that every single thing the YouTuber says is true. He was planning to land in the backyard, his buddy told him there was plenty of room, he had no reason to doubt it, until he was on short final below 100 ft. Only at that moment was he able to see that the site was unsuitable for landing. Let's just assume that every bit of that is true.

So why did he come back and do the same thing two weeks later?
 
Lindberg said:
So why did he come back and do the same thing two weeks later?
Click to expand...
That's a fair point, and I agree that points to trying to **** off the neighbors. I haven't been following closely enough to know that was part of it. My opinion was based on the plausibility of him landing his plane in that space.

midlifeflyer said:
I'm just asking for an articulatable difference that sets a standard which can be at least quasi-objectively applied to other situations. If you can't, that's ok.
Click to expand...
Let's just use the definition of "congested area"... oh wait....
 
texasclouds said:
Based on that backyard dirt bike track…my guess is the neighbors are already ****ed with the landowner making noise. If he also was flying rc planes, the neighbors probably were primed to complain. The low pass was maybe the last straw.
Click to expand...

Imagine the noise if two-stroke dirt-bikes ruled the earth again. Dirt bike racing was never the same from the spectator standpoint once 4-strokes began their ascent. Now electric. Something about 10k plus rpm makes me feel younger and aliver, like the sound of an 88” prop.

The first 20 seconds of this video never gets old (@Mtns2Skies):
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top